[Question] Employer not handling my Cost to Company to my best advantage tax-wise?

Welcome to The Forum SA. As a visitor you have read only access to the public content areas of this website. You will have to register as a member to access all content, post messages and network with our members. Membership is free and registering is quick and easy. You can click here to register now and become a member within minutes.

Employer not handling my Cost to Company to my best advantage tax-wise?

Good day, my employer 'makes' a contribution on my behalf to the in-house retirement fund of 7.5% plus another 4.5% (ouch) for disability and death cover. They then make a contribution of 7.5% from my 'pensionable salary' before tax which is 'my' contribution. This is acording to the fund rules, but it's actually all 'my' salary as the company has a cost to company model.

1. I pay a fringe benefit tax on my employer's contribution. As my salary is Cost to Company it seems rediculous that my company must pay a contribution on my behalf which is then subject to fringe benefit taxation. Yes this is according to the fund rules but these rules can be changed. Is my understanding, as outlined above, correct that this practice is not in my best interests and the trustees are falling down on their responsibility to their members? Please could suitably knowledgeable forum members comment/advise.

2. PMy employer does not seem to get it that there is no longer such a concept such as 'pensionable salary' from a taxation point of view and do not seem to care about or want to acknowledge the retirement tax reforms. Please comment.

I believe that for the tax implications alone I could do a better job investing for my retirement myself in an RA, investing a healthy 27.5% tax free, but the company has made membership of their fund compulsory. I do already contribute the difference between 27.5% and my contributions to the company to an RA.

Not really. Although the company contribution is added to your income nowadays, it is also deducted from your total income for purposes of calculating your income tax payable. When it comes to income tax, the change has a zero effect on your income tax payable.

Originally Posted by fondmama

2. PMy employer does not seem to get it that there is no longer such a concept such as 'pensionable salary' from a taxation point of view

The differentiation between retirement funding income and non-retirement funding income on an IRP5 has been a technicality in most instances for years already. However, as long as SARS keeps the two fields on the IRP5, employers have little choice but to differentiate and track the two.